University AI Policy Tracker

Open, evidence-backed AI policy records for public reuse.

APIGitHub

Change log

University of Plymouth

Source-check timeline, source snapshot hashes, claim review state, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed claim evidence.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 17, 2026Last changedMay 17, 2026Claims3Sources1
University pagePublic JSON

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

University of Plymouth currently has 3 source-backed claim records and 1 official source attribution. Latest tracked changed date: May 17, 2026.

This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.

Claim/evidence diff preview

Diff-style preview built from current public claim/evidence records. Full old/new source diffs require paired historical snapshots.

University of Plymouth current policy evidence

Inserted lines represent current public claim and evidence records in the source-backed dataset.

+6-0
11 # University of Plymouth AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance says AI tools such as ChatGPT should generally not be used to generate the final version of assessed work, unless the coursework briefing clearly states an exception.
3+Evidence (en, e19401d4c8a7): In general, AI tools such as ChatGPT should not be used in generating the final version of your work for submission. Any exceptions to this will be clearly stated in the coursework briefing.
4+academic_integrity: University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance states that using ChatGPT or similar AI tools to generate assessed work for submission is considered plagiarism and a breach of the university's academic offences regulations.
5+Evidence (en, e19401d4c8a7): Utilizing ChatGPT or similar AI tools to generate the assessed work that you submit is considered plagiarism and a breach of our university's academic offences regulations. Such practices can result in disciplinary action, up to and including a requirement to withdraw from the university.
6+ai_tool_treatment: University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance describes limited AI uses such as brainstorming, planning, structuring work, proofreading, checking typos, generating example code, and exploring how code works.
7+Evidence (en, e19401d4c8a7): AI tools can be valuable for helping set out the parameters of arguments and providing examples of how to structure different pieces of work; AI can also be used to generate example code and also explore how other people's code works; AI can be used for proof-reading and checking for typos.

Claim changes

3 claim records

academic_integrity

University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance says AI tools such as ChatGPT should generally not be used to generate the final version of assessed work, unless the coursework briefing clearly states an exception.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance states that using ChatGPT or similar AI tools to generate assessed work for submission is considered plagiarism and a breach of the university's academic offences regulations.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

University of Plymouth Faculty of Science and Engineering guidance describes limited AI uses such as brainstorming, planning, structuring work, proofreading, checking typos, generating example code, and exploring how code works.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence89%Evidence1Languagesen

Source snapshots

1 source attribution